Utility-Scale Quantum Computation of Ground-State Energy in a 100+ Site Planar Kagome Antiferromagnet via Hamiltonian Engineering
Abstract: We present experimental quantum computation of the ground-state energy in a 103-site flat Kagome lattice under the antiferromagnetic Heisenberg model (KAFH), with IBM's Heron r1 and Heron r2 quantum processors. For spin-1/2 KAFH, our per-site ground-state energy estimate is $-0.417\,J$, which, under open-boundary corrections, matches the energy in the thermodynamic limit, i.e., $-0.4386\,J$. To achieve this, we used a hybrid approach that splits the conventional Variational Quantum Eigensolver (VQE) into local (classical) and global (quantum) components for efficient hardware utilization. More importantly, we introduce a Hamiltonian engineering strategy that increases coupling on defect triangles to mimic loop-flip dynamics, allowing us to simplify the ansatz while retaining computational accuracy. Using a single-repetition, hardware-efficient ansatz, we entangle up to 103 qubits with high fidelity to determine the Hamiltonian's lowest eigenvalue. This work demonstrates the scalability of VQE for frustrated 2D systems and lays the foundation for future studies using deeper ansatz circuits and larger lattices on utility quantum processors.
Paper Prompts
Sign up for free to create and run prompts on this paper using GPT-5.
Top Community Prompts
Knowledge Gaps
Knowledge gaps, limitations, and open questions
Below is a single, consolidated list of concrete gaps and open questions that remain unresolved and could guide future work:
- Ambiguity in the target Hamiltonian: The final reported energies are measured for the engineered Hamiltonian (with on defect bonds) during optimization and evaluation, yet the benchmarking is against the original KAFH () thermodynamic limit. A clear protocol to map energies from back to (e.g., reweighting, variational re-evaluation of , or adiabatic continuation) is missing.
- ODR consistency and noise model mismatch: The ODR procedure rescales using a ratio computed with , implicitly assuming the same noise scaling for and under (approximate) depolarizing noise. A derivation or empirical validation that this cross-Hamiltonian scaling is valid on real (non-depolarizing, coherent, non-Markovian) devices is not provided.
- Lack of direct evaluation of the original Hamiltonian: The expectation for the final state is not reported. Directly measuring both and would clarify how much the Hamiltonian engineering biases energy estimates relative to the true KAFH.
- Truncated cost function risks: The global VQE optimizes a heavily truncated Hamiltonian localized around junction qubits. No guarantee is provided that minimizing correlates monotonically with minimizing or . An ablation study comparing optimization with full vs. truncated cost terms is needed.
- Empirical calibration of lacks principled justification at scale: While small-patch ED/VQE matches motivate , there is no analysis of how should vary with lattice size, defect density, or environment. Systematic sensitivity analyses (sweeps over and different defect bonds) on larger patches are missing.
- Transferability of local tuning: The local VQE uses segment-specific values (cluster around 1.9–2.0), assumed transferable to the 103-qubit lattice. Empirical tests of transferability across multiple large geometries and defect configurations are not reported.
- Dependence on qubit-to-site mapping and VBC seed: The approach relies on a particular static VBC covering and mapping-induced defect triangles. The impact of alternative seeds, mappings, and defect placements on energy and correlations is not quantified.
- Restricted ansatz expressivity: A single-repetition, real-amplitude, 1D hardware-efficient ansatz is used for a highly frustrated 2D system. There is no comparison to more expressive or symmetry-preserving ansätze (e.g., SU(2)-symmetric, 2D entanglers, deeper layers), leaving unanswered how much energy (and physics) is missed by the chosen circuit family.
- Absence of symmetry checks: The prepared states are not tested for SU(2) invariance (e.g., ), total magnetization, or other conserved quantities. Quantifying symmetry violations would reveal variational bias and guide ansatz design.
- Missing energy variance (eigenstate proximity): Energy variance is not reported. Without it, proximity to an eigenstate (and thus the reliability of the energy as a ground-state estimate) is unclear.
- No characterization of long-range entanglement and spin-liquid diagnostics: The study does not measure correlation functions, dimer–dimer correlations, structure factors, topological entanglement entropy, or vison/spinon signatures. Energy alone does not validate a spin liquid or RVB-like order on large lattices.
- Finite-size and boundary effects treated heuristically: The open-boundary correction (OBC) uses edge-site energies inferred from small clusters and extrapolates to a much larger patch. A systematic finite-size scaling across multiple planar geometries (varying sizes and shapes) is lacking.
- Inconsistencies and clarity in energy scaling/conversions: There are apparent arithmetic and typographical inconsistencies in converting “4×” energies to per-site values (e.g., −172.4/4 vs. −52.1; 103 vs. 125 vs. omitted sites). A transparent, reproducible pipeline for all conversions and denominators is needed.
- Treatment of sites omitted from the circuit: Alphabetically labeled sites are “excluded from the quantum circuit but included in the per-site energy calculation.” The physical and numerical justification for including non-simulated sites in the per-site average is not provided.
- Geometry mismatch (103-qubit circuit vs. 125-site lattice): The dotted region is not mapped to the quantum problem, yet energies are discussed for the 125-site geometry. A consistent definition of the simulated Hamiltonian, lattice sites included, and how totals/per-site numbers are computed is missing.
- Lack of classical baselines on the same geometry: Beyond MPS with circuit cutting, no comparison to state-of-the-art 2D tensor networks (e.g., PEPS, DMRG on planar patches) for the exact same boundary conditions and lattice is provided. This limits the credibility of the claimed accuracy.
- Optimizer and training stability: Only NFT is used, with limited reporting of hyperparameters, convergence diagnostics, and run-to-run variability. Comparative studies with alternative optimizers, learning-rate schedules, and initialization strategies are absent.
- Selection bias across processors/parameter sets: The practice of selecting “best” minima across devices and parameter pools without pre-registered criteria risks optimistic bias. A statistically rigorous protocol (cross-validation, holdout runs, preregistered selection) is needed.
- Sparse reporting of hardware metrics: No detailed device layout mapping, transpiled circuit depth/CX count per qubit pair, SWAP overhead, error rates, crosstalk, or leakage are provided. Without these, claims of “high fidelity” entanglement across 103 qubits are unsupported.
- Limited noise mitigation benchmarking: ODR is used exclusively. There is no comparison against alternative methods (e.g., M3/MIT, ZNE, PEC, Clifford data regression) or combinations thereof, nor an error budget attributing residual error to different noise sources.
- Uncertainty quantification is incomplete: Final noise-mitigated energies lack comprehensive confidence intervals that propagate (i) shot noise, (ii) device drift, (iii) ODR ratio uncertainties, and (iv) selection over multiple minima. A full uncertainty budget is absent.
- No analysis of measurement strategies: Grouping, commuting term partitioning, shot allocation, and estimator robustness for the 507-term Hamiltonian are not detailed, nor are trade-offs between measurement depth and variance.
- Unverified “loop-flip” dynamics at scale: While small-scale tests show dimer resonance with , the emergence of extensive loop flips and resonance in the 103-site system is not demonstrated via observables (e.g., plaquette operators or bond-energy circulation patterns).
- Generalization beyond Kagome: It is unclear whether the Hamiltonian engineering strategy (defect-targeted tuning) transfers to other frustrated lattices (triangular, hyperkagome, pyrochlore). Systematic tests on different geometries are missing.
- Excited-state and gap estimation: No attempt is made to extract the spin gap or low-lying spectrum (important for the gapped scenario). Methods such as subspace expansion or excited-state VQE are not explored.
- Scaling roadmap: The path from 103 qubits to larger lattices (circuit depth growth, SWAP scaling on heavy-hex, measurement cost, optimizer performance) is not quantified, leaving scalability claims largely anecdotal.
- Reproducibility artifacts: Some equations are malformed and referential links (e.g., to figures/equations) and numerical values appear inconsistent. A fully reproducible artifact (exact circuits, seeds, measurement records, raw counts, and analysis scripts) is not comprehensively documented.
- Physics validation beyond energy: Without independent physical diagnostics (symmetries, correlators, entanglement, and response functions), it remains an open question whether the engineered VQE state captures the correct phase (spin liquid vs. VBC) rather than merely achieving a low energy via model modifications.
- Principle for choosing engineered bonds: Only one bond per defect triangle is enhanced to . The optimal choice (which bond, how many bonds, spatial patterns) and its impact on bias/variance of energy estimates are not explored.
- Learning the Hamiltonian vs. the state: Treating as trainable variational parameters (with regularization) could blur the line between state optimization and model modification. A principled framework that prevents “overfitting” the Hamiltonian to match small-patch ED is lacking.
- Energy bounds and counting: The heuristic lower/upper bounds (e.g., triangle counting to −180 in 4× units) may double-count interactions due to shared edges. Rigorous variational or operator-inequality-based bounds for the specific open lattice are not provided.
These gaps suggest concrete next steps: measure both and for the final state; validate ODR under realistic noise; run finite-size scaling across multiple planar patches; adopt and compare symmetry-preserving and deeper ansätze; quantify long-range correlations and topological diagnostics; benchmark against state-of-the-art classical methods on identical geometries; and report a comprehensive, statistically rigorous uncertainty and hardware performance analysis.
Collections
Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.